:-*Any comparison has to remove bottom tier matches, which lowers the pc of both coaches- Eddie down to 70 pc, Woodward down by a slightly smaller amount. Then you have to remove NZ as Eddie has barely played them , but Woodward won 2 from 8, vs Eddie 1 from 2, ruining Woodward win pc when NZ have not been about to ruin Eddie's.
When you look at what is left you see vs Australlia and France Woodward has a worse record than Eddie, although still more wins than losses vs both He has a far, far better one vs SA, Wales, Ireland and Scotland, where Eddie languishes at about 50 pc vs these opponents as a whole and Woodward barely lost playing multiple matches vs the same opponents. Taken overall vs Wales, Scotland, Ireland , SA, France, Australia Woodward is ahead.
Argentina, fwiw, barely impact the figures as both coaches generally win.
I think it fair to make a comparison on these grounds, even though Wales are better now than they were and Australia worse, for example. It is as good a metric as any.
The main thing is Eddie won a lot for two years, Woodward lost a lot for a similar time, esp playing the big 3 SH teams. Is it fair to compare when one started a WC cycle, the other started half way through? Do you look at WC cycles?.Nobody is arguing with Eddie's short term results, which are outstanding.
Post 2017 we have a picture of mediocrity vs top tier nations that compares poorly to any 4 and a bit year stretch from Woodwards' reign no matter which way you slice it, but it is still not a like v like comparison.